The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the facts charged is that Defendant A, as the D representative director of the Bupyeong-gu Incheon Metropolitan Government Office of Bupyeong-gu Seoul Building 717, is an employer who runs a manufacturing business with ten full-time workers.

An employer shall clearly state wages, contractual working hours, holidays under Article 55, annual paid leaves under Article 60, and other working conditions prescribed by Presidential Decree in concluding an employment contract.

In such cases, matters concerning the constituent items, calculation method, payment method, prescribed working hours, holidays under Article 55, and annual paid leave under Article 60 shall be specified in writing and delivered to the worker at his/her request.

Nevertheless, when concluding a labor contract on March 14, 201 with E which conducts safety inspection and maintenance and repair work at the above workplace, the Defendant did not specify in writing the items constituting wages, calculation method, payment method, prescribed working hours, holidays under Article 55, annual paid leave under Article 60.

2. In light of the evidence duly selected and examined by this court, E stated to the effect that the police did not have prepared a written labor contract on the working conditions in the written form, and that the Defendant was not able to submit the labor contract with E.

However, on August 9, 2016, E was present at this court on August 9, 2016 and received a written document stating the constituent items or calculation method of wages, payment method, working hours, etc. at the time of concluding a labor contract, and the written document refers to the labor contract kept in the company.

“The testimony was made,” which appears to be a statement that E would be more reliable than the statement made by the police, because it was about six months prior to February 21, 2017, for which the Defendant expressed his or her intention not to punish the Defendant.

Considering the above circumstances, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize the instant facts charged.

3. Thus, the above facts charged constitute a crime.